Difference Between Knowledge and Understanding

Veridical = true, so Veridical Knowledge = True Knowledge (the only true knowledge, in other words, understanding). The other types of knowledge are not true knowledge since they are relative to the person and not absolute

And if you say that objectual or propositional knowledge is knowledge, then it's just semantics - you're making believe, so to speak, that it is

But the point is no one (yet) truly knows how the dream work is accomplished by the dreamer. Ok, we know the general techniques, but that's objectual knowledge, and we know that, by these techniques, they do such and such, but that's propositional knowledge. And it's not true (veridical) knowledge but merely a facon de parler

Of course the ideal is to "learn" this objectual and further propositional knowledge in order to strive for the verdical knowledge (in other words, the understanding)

But again it's all semantics, designed so that we can praise those who garner objectual and propositional knowledge - language and hence praise being culturally relative

Any objectual and propositional knowledge is merely at best true belief

I'm trying to understand the OP's point, without knowing that he was making a philosophical point, but became enlightened by subsequent posts. Which in a roundabout way, proves my direct point.

I still haven't a clue though, exactly what he's trying to prove.

Sorry.

true belief being true or correct judgment

I think it's a goose chase, and the words are mostly synonymous, i.e. used to mean the same things. I don't think it matters much to people if they use one word or the other.

Understand can sometimes be used for propisitions also. For instance "He saw there was smoke everywhere, and in that moment he understood that the forest was really burning." I guess you'd just use the word like that if you want to stress the sort of event of going from not-knowing to knowing p ( p = the forest is burning.)

I think your investigation is based on the idea that normal words mean really clear-cut ideas, so you can analyze the word and figure out what it "really means". They don't, words can mean completely contradictory things. They also change meaning all the time.

"Envy" for instance once meant a mortal sin, it meant the emotion of wanting badly to kill your neighbors donkey if you didnt have one yourself. So something really destructive and bad. It was then used in commercials in the 1950ies and got a new meaning. By "everyone will envy you your car" they didn't mean you should expect people to come and smash your car, but that they would just sort of want it also. Now you can call a perfume "Envy", but you can't call it "Hate" because we still don't want to be hated lol. Maybe in a 100 years hate will also change meaning.

You should rather not bother with the words but instead start with analyzing concept and then call them whatever word seems apopriate.

Veridical knowledge gives or presents us objectual knowledge through propositional knowledge (or, in other words, language)

I call it the "Triangulation of Knowledge")))

There's no knowledge without understanding, just like there's no understanding without knowledge. On first glance, they look like two different perspectives of the same thing.

The question evokes the epistemological problem:

What does it mean to know?

Can one truly know anything?

There's no resolution because any conclusions or insights taken from this (or any other) subject are hostages of language.

I know more before commenting, but have less understanding. Ah. Another philosophical question common in these types of threads. Heh.

Yes but when you say that you 'understand that the forest is burning' you imply that you know what burning is and what the forest is for that matter; you understand (and know) the (objectual) concepts 'forest' and 'burning' and how they relate - in other words, knowing what it means for a forest to burn means how know how it burns - you understand that it's burning

And that's the problem because we think in a language of thought and without concepts we can't know and hence understand anything - that's why for example we can't know / understand what it is like to be a bat - in other words, we can't know / understand how a bat feels because we don't have the relevant phenomenological concepts

So as Plato said there really isn't a difference between the three types of knowing and you can see that at least in English, it is a sloppy language and the lines get blurred - although I think it is important to have these distinctions of knowledge to see what is make-believe knowledge so to speak and what is true knowledge

I switched "know" and "understand" in your sentence to show you they are synonyms. If they meant something different, like the words "know" and "jump" it should become gibberish when you switch the words.

Yes but when you say that you 'know that the forest is burning' you imply that you understand what burning is and what the forest is for that matter; you know (and understand) the (objectual) concepts 'forest' and 'burning' and how they relate - in other words, understanding what it means for a forest to burn means how understanding how it burns - you know that it's burning

Yes but when you say that you 'understand that the forest is burning' you imply that you know what burning is and what the forest is for that matter; you understand (and know) the (objectual) concepts 'forest' and 'burning' and how they relate - in other words, knowing what it means for a forest to burn means how know how it burns - you understand that it's burning

That's false as people were saying. Using the sloppy language that we have to work with, (although you can see that's why I recommended distinguishing these three types of knowledge and so to speak 'translating' sloppy sentences into the correct form) "knowledge" isn't sufficient for understanding - I can, to use everyday speech, know that it's snowing but not understand how or why it does so. Or I know that I'm dreaming but not how. And vice versa - understanding isn't necessarily sufficient for knowledge - I can understand something but not be confident enough to believe it - hence I wouldn't know. Of course as we've been saying all of this really is semantics, but then if you say that I can just say well everything is everything 

I agree they're synonyms sometimes but not necessarily - that is, they're identical only when you know how or why - and if you say 'I understand that it's burning' it means you have propositional knowledge and are using the word 'understanding' incorrectly, as true understanding means something more than that, namely, how or why it's burning

'I understand that it's burning' is different from 'I understand how it's burning'